memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Archduk3/Archive 14
James Averys Age Just saw you locked the James Avery article due to conflict of the age. I just want to provide you this link that displays his date of birth from public records. It verifies the current date of birth we have given for him. Public Records Also I don't think it is necessary to lock the page as the user who change the age was the first to do so in a couple of days since the initial confusion began. --BorgKnight (talk) 06:15, January 7, 2014 (UTC) :The news article we link to to cite his death conflicts with the age stated in the article, and if you check that web address, even itself. The page is locked because I expect these edits are likely to continue until this is settled. Also, locking the page is the established protocol for edit warring. - 06:36, January 7, 2014 (UTC) I understand then about the protocol for edit warring. However since we have a link that contradicts the age we have placed on the page shouldn't we add another that verifies his age. As you said to the previous user who edited his age we use Primary Sources for age as well unlike Wikipedia. Should we not add a link to his age that comes from Public Records, a Primary source? --BorgKnight (talk) 06:44, January 7, 2014 (UTC) :If that's what is decided on the talk page, we will. The page only has 65 as his age because it was returned to a pre-conflict state, though I did decide to keep the additions that aren't in conflict so it doesn't look like we are unaware he died. I'm not really supporting one over the other here just yet, I only thought that it was necessary to point out to the anon that unlike Wikipedia we do accept public records, because based on their article's talk page it seems they have gone with 68 mostly because public records can't be used as a source. Since we allow both public records and news articles, we need to decide which is the one we're going to use. Though if we do go with 65, I'm willing to bet the edit war won't really stop unless Wikipedia uses 65 too. - 07:09, January 7, 2014 (UTC) Ya I agree with you there, hopefully it is resolved in some way soon. Something tells me though that the publicist was mistaken as the age she gave doesn't match up with the fact he joined the Navy in '68 just after he left high school. If his birth year was 1945 it would mean he at the least left high school at the age of 22 which would make no sense. --BorgKnight (talk) 07:34, January 7, 2014 (UTC) Talk Page issue Sorry about that. I don't know what happened there. I was discussing something about quotes on an article then he removed our whole discussion. Wasn't sure why so I undid it. Not sure what was wrong but its done now. Sorry again. --BorgKnight (talk) 22:14, January 23, 2014 (UTC) :Yes, I apologize too. I left my computer on MA and left to do some things and my roommate thought it might be funny, I guess, to erase some of my talk page and stuff like that. Sorry. It won't happen again. --Delta2373 (talk) 22:34, January 23, 2014 (UTC) Yup. No problem as I said on my talk page. Happens to many. Think nothing of it. :) --BorgKnight (talk) 22:36, January 23, 2014 (UTC) Martok Reconfirmation Template Just wanted to say thanks for adding the recon template to Martok. An oversight on my part. --| TrekFan Open a channel 04:19, January 25, 2014 (UTC) :NBD, it is a relatively complicated procedure. - 04:38, January 25, 2014 (UTC) Haha... --| TrekFan Open a channel 05:27, January 25, 2014 (UTC) Website templates Hey Duke, Awhile back, templates for frequently referenced to websites were introduced, on the occasion of the going dark of the DrexFiles. Reasoning behind that was if any of these were ever going "light" again, it was easier to adjust the links. Well, here is one, the Federation Starship Datalink is up again here, so an opportunity has arisen to test the assumption ;). Regards, --Sennim (talk) 15:25, February 14, 2014 (UTC) :Done. As far as I know the new site uses the same structure as the old one, so there shouldn't be any problems. - 23:13, February 14, 2014 (UTC) Not that I can see; Great stuff:)--Sennim (talk) 14:25, February 15, 2014 (UTC) Categories created without approval Forum:Category pages created on 2014-02-17 without prior discussion - please explain yourself. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 22:58, February 17, 2014 (UTC) Blogs FYI, that "User blog:" page was simply created in the main namespace. There is no blog namespace here. -- sulfur (talk) 00:26, February 21, 2014 (UTC) :I figured as much because of the space after the colon, but the site has been acting intermittently weird for the last couple of weeks, so I couldn't rule it out that blogs may have been flipped on. - 04:47, February 21, 2014 (UTC) Leonard McCoy (alternate reality) main image Snice you didn't like my last image. How about this one, can we use this image.--TyphussJediVader (talk) 04:57, March 3, 2014 (UTC) :It's already done. - 04:59, March 3, 2014 (UTC) Do you like this image, is it a good main image for the Leonard McCoy (alternate reality) page?.--TyphussJediVader (talk) 05:01, March 3, 2014 (UTC) :Others may have a problem with the face he is making, but I think it captures the character well without having him at an odd angle. - 05:04, March 3, 2014 (UTC) Thank you, it is better than the first image i uploaded.--TyphussJediVader (talk) 05:07, March 3, 2014 (UTC) I also uploaded this image to Memory Beta as well and it looks good there on the same page.--TyphussJediVader (talk) 05:09, March 3, 2014 (UTC) Template Shading Hey Archduk3, I have my own wiki, and I have a question about the shading on your templates that use class="grey sortable". By shading, I mean the red title bar that goes from a lighter red to a darker one. I assume you guys have used a CSS code for this effect, and I was wondering if you could share the code with me. I really like the way it goes from light to dark and would love to have that effect for templates on my wiki. Thanks! CaptFredricks (talk) 00:00, March 6, 2014 (UTC) :See MediaWiki:Common.css, its talk page, and this forum discussion, in a descending order of relevance. - 00:25, March 6, 2014 (UTC) ::Alright, I will do that, thanks!! CaptFredricks (talk) 18:33, March 6, 2014 (UTC) New linking template? Hey Duke, I was wondering if a new linking template is at its place for TrekCore.com. Since they became partnered up with TNG-R in 2012 for its promotion, a bucketload of BGinfo, interviews and reviews have been added to their website, ranging from the actual productions to print publications. I find myself, regularly checking out their site and increasingly adding links to it. For your consideration...--Sennim (talk) 11:59, March 6, 2014 (UTC) :Trekcore has always been on the list of external sites we link to often, mostly for screencaps, but the site structure, VARIABLE.trekcore.com/VARIABLES, has made creating an accessible template difficult. Also, information at Trekcore tends to not have citations or some other means to verify it, which has stopped us from using stuff from there in the past. For example, the page you linked to contains more than one entry on the Vulcan language, but never states where that information comes from. That makes it a good place to start researching the Vulcan language, but not something we should cite, since MA:RESOURCE is states info from fan site must also be citable to an acceptable resource. That said, I'll see what I can do. - 14:39, March 6, 2014 (UTC) I didn't realize its variable structure, which I see it would be difficult, and I'm agreeing to the pre-2012 stuff such as the Vulcan language, but what I was aiming at is the stuff they've added since 2012, which, especially their interviews with staffers, has become acceptable sources. But do not try to bend over backwards on my account, if it is too difficult, it is too difficult, it isn't a matter of life and death;)-- 16:12, March 6, 2014 (UTC) (edit: sorry forgot to sign in --Sennim (talk) 16:15, March 6, 2014 (UTC)) :See . It isn't as "clean" as some of the other templates, but it will get the job done. I don't really think we're saving that much text by using it, but it will at least make finding and updating links easier if anything changes. Let me know if you find any instances where it doesn't work, since I think I accounted for all the different address permutations that they use, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was at least one out the I didn't check for. - 04:20, March 8, 2014 (UTC) I admit, I haven't give you the right link, the true (2012 onward) stuff I was referring to, was invariably posted on their blog, might be helping you finetuning stuff--Sennim (talk) 00:43, March 9, 2014 (UTC) :The template needs to be able to link to more than just the blog, as seen here, though I should let you know that the intended target for the non-blog link wasn't clear to me once I got there. We do also have a number of other links elsewhere that go to non-blog locations, so it had to be all inclusive. Mainly just let me know if you encounter any problems with it while trying to use it, since this is the only one I think might have issues on our end. :On an unrelated note, if you know of any links to Mike Sussman's site that aren't using , please convert them, since his site now redirects to his imdb page. - 03:28, March 9, 2014 (UTC) Cool, will keep you informed if I encounter any difficulties...Sussman, as writer, is however outside my (VFX) field of interest, so at the moment I can not be of any help to you at this moment--Sennim (talk) 03:56, March 9, 2014 (UTC) Talk page... Can you see mine and deal with that? -- sulfur (talk) 12:33, March 13, 2014 (UTC) Baton Rouge article I don't know if you've seen this created by 123lilbrad but it needs deleting. It appears to be a carbon copy from Wikipedia or some other source. --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:57, March 15, 2014 (UTC) :Looks like Tom got it. - 20:06, March 15, 2014 (UTC) Requested image Hey. You've requested the file File:Medical case, 2364.jpg. I've uploaded it. There is no clearer version as Crusher shakes the case. :) Tom (talk) 23:46, March 15, 2014 (UTC) :Thanks. I'll keep an eye out for it in other episodes, since I'm sure I've seen it more than once, and hopefully it will be steady in a shot somewhere. :) - 07:01, March 19, 2014 (UTC) 466 Glider This information is seen in screencap 79. 614&page 4}} The caption reads, "NCC/1701*466 Glider", and is located above the warning, "Engine Overheating". I did a search on 466 Glider, and I discovered that there was in World War II a "466th Glider Field Artillery Battalion". I think someone was honoring a relative or friend who fought in that war. http://www.scionsofthe17thairborne.org/concrete5/index.php/taps/ Ref: Al Krzesinski (466th Glider Field Artillery Batt. HQ) - Died December 16, 2011. I think, for myself, that the official name for the Takayama-type shuttle is 466 Glider. That's just me, however. :)Throwback (talk) 03:16, April 4, 2014 (UTC) :It seems more probable to me that, since this info is on the same line, or part of, the registry, that shuttle 1 was the 466th shuttle registered to the Enterprise, or on the 466th mission from the Enterprise, and all non-warp shuttles are designated gliders, since they require starships to transport them over long distances. Of course, that's all speculation as well. :) - 15:00, April 5, 2014 (UTC) External links and linking template Hey Duke, The linking template isn't quite working properly. When I tried "templating" this link 2002 Rick Sternbach interview, into this: FWG5kgNctasKk|2002 Rick Sternbach interview|external}} it didn't translate properly, as you can see. Which, by the way, brings me to a related matter; What is MA's stance on really, truly dead-as-a-doornail external links, i.e. not even preserved in the WayBackMachine. I've noticed that links from the latter half of the 1990's early 2000's are disappearing in an ever increasing rate. Now, most of them are (partially) preserved in WBM, though they too have already started to beg for money, so it remains to be seen how long they last. A slowly increasing number though, have really started to recede into digital oblivion, most recently Ed Miarecki's homepage. As this means it can no longer be accessed for verification by simple folk like me who doesn't has access to the resources of the world's secret intelligence services, or those of Google, is the info derived from those then therefore no longer valid? His site was IIRC on two dozen occasions or so referenced to and cited from. I, for one, sincerely hope not, since my gut tells me that about a quarter to a third of all the production info, in particular, is gleaned from internet sources. Kind Regards--Sennim (talk) 15:00, April 8, 2014 (UTC) :Whenever "=" is in a link in a template, you must surround it with curly braces . Then it works. -- sulfur (talk) 15:31, April 8, 2014 (UTC) Ah, that one is solved, thanks, Sulfur--Sennim (talk) 15:42, April 8, 2014 (UTC) ::If there are a substantial number of links, we should template them so they can be found without doing an advanced Google search, like or . ::Otherwise, it's best to put the link in the broken link template and keep it, even if the WBM doesn't have a version of the page in the archive, so it's easy to see that the information in question did at one point at least have a citation, even if it can no longer be verified. I don't think the validity of information that is no longer able to be verified has been addressed at the site-wide, or "guideline and policy", level, though some "double red links" may have been discussed on a case by case basis. I know the assumption when a link is added is that it is checked at some point shortly afterward, so I would think that without a guideline or policy on the matter, removing them outright would have to be done case by case on the talk pages, or at least a(n external) site by site basis in a forum post. - 23:49, April 8, 2014 (UTC) Okay, it seems were are likeminded ;) I'll "brokenlink" Miarecki's homepagelinks where I come across them, and do so for eventual others I come across. In Miarecki's case I can still visualize what was there, as I've regularly consulted his site, and I'd hate to lose the info, but for others in the future that will be unfeasible...Goes to show, when internet arrived, I really thought info would be there for the ages, only to find it is extremely fleeting. Now here is a case for paper books and magazines...We, albeit with some effort, can still read what Thutmosis III wrote 3000 years ago, but I very much doubt if anything that is put online now is still accessible 30 years from now.--Sennim (talk) 06:44, April 9, 2014 (UTC) Image galleries Hey, I have a question that I posted earlier this year on Sulfur's Talk Page regarding a layout aspect on MemoryAlpha. I've noticed the image galleries (example) have a set width for each image in which the image automatically re-sizes to fit the box. How is this achieved? Because normally Wikia galleries don't do this. I assume this involves some CSS? Kleaver (talk) 18:12, April 10, 2014 (UTC) :As far as I know this is how galleries are "suppose" to behave, though I suppose that something in the CSS might be affecting it. We used to be able to set the default gallery size for both the site and as users, but wikia removed those options years ago, for no reason I might add, and I've actually been looking for a way to regain that control on and off since then, to, as far as I know, no avail. According to wikia's help page on the subject, the default size is a 200px box, so I guess my question to you would be can you link to an example of galleries behaving differently? I might be able to better help you then. - 04:39, April 11, 2014 (UTC) Sure, pretty much every wiki uses the default, see this gallery on The Vault (edit: NukaPedia, whatever) for example (w:c:fallout:Ghoul#Gallery). Although every image in this gallery is automatically resized to a smaller percentage, the sizes still differ, whereas on MA the gallery boxes that contain the images are always 200px by 200px. Kleaver (talk) 17:55, April 13, 2014 (UTC) File:bullet.png File:Hoshi Sato, mirror Empress.jpg :Images that have a native resolution below 200px won't be displayed larger than whatever their actual size is. The "boxes" at NukaPedia are just borders around the image, and the difference is where we have our borders. The two images above are actually displayed at different sizes, but it seems like they are the same size because we have the border, and a background color, displayed around, and in, the 200px wide/tall box instead of around the actual image. .wikia-gallery-item .thumb { border: 1px solid #666; background-color: #222; } .wikia-gallery-item .thumb .gallery-image-wrapper { border: none; } .WikiaArticle div.gallerybox div.thumb .gallerybox { background: none repeat scroll 0 0 #222; border: 1px solid #666; } .gallery-image-wrapper { background-color: transparent; } :This should be the relevant CSS that removes the border around the image itself, and adds a border and background color around and in the 200px "box" the image is displayed in. The HTML color codes would have to be changed to match whatever color scheme you're using of course. Hope that helps. - 18:39, April 13, 2014 (UTC) Yeah, I actually started realizing that just after I posted my last reply. I might consider using this 'wider border' on my own wiki, makes it seems a bit more organized and uniform. Thanks for the help! Kleaver (talk) 18:59, April 13, 2014 (UTC) EllieNeo I unblocked her, but she states that she is still blocked. Do you know why this would be? 31dot (talk) 22:00, April 23, 2014 (UTC) :Could be: :#She needs to clear her cache :#IP address is still blocked :#There is a global block for either her IP address or username in effect :Those are the only things I can think of that might result in her still being blocked. Sulfur is the guy with all dark magicks when it comes to this sort of thing though, so you might want to ask him. - 22:09, April 23, 2014 (UTC) :I think I've removed the auto-IP address block that was done when first you blocked her, so have her try editing again. Even if this solves the problem, we should inform sulfur in case this isn't the desired behavior. - 22:26, April 23, 2014 (UTC) Well, you knew more than I did, so I thank you. :) 31dot (talk) 22:47, April 23, 2014 (UTC) ISS Avenger assignment patch You recently deleted the ISS Avenger assignment patch. On the Avenger page there is now a broke link because of your deletion. You stated you deleted it because there was a duplicate but I can't seem to find any other image to replace the one you delete. Is there one? --BorgKnight (talk) 02:23, May 18, 2014 (UTC) Actually forget what I said, found the new file. --BorgKnight (talk) 02:32, May 18, 2014 (UTC) Image deletion I see you've deleted the image I've put up for deletion, the aircar thing. Would you mind telling me exactly what I did wrong / how I should handle something like this the next time? -- Capricorn (talk) 14:31, May 24, 2014 (UTC) :I actually merged the two images together, so the deletion discussion wasn't necessary. Generally, if someone uploads a duplicate image under a different file name and the two images are the same format, it's better to merge them together instead of delete one, to preserve the file history. If the file formats are different, one of them should be labeled as an immediate deletion. - 15:02, May 24, 2014 (UTC) Ok, am I understanding this correctly? if they're different formats they should be listed them for immediate deletion. And if they're not, they should be merged. Also since merging is something only an admin can do I'm guessing, where should I report such an duplicate? -- Capricorn (talk) 16:22, May 24, 2014 (UTC) :If there are two images of the same thing that are different formats, only the image that is the wrong format, according to MA:IMAGE, should be listed for immediate deletion. For merges, the image at the file name we don t want to keep should be marked with the template, which should point to the file with the name we do want when filled out correctly (remember to add the "File:" namespace part). That, or just use a talk page for a recently active admin to flag them down. Deletion discussions for files generally only need to happen for unused or non-canon stuff, as personal, spam, inappropriate, and duplicate files can be dealt with immediately by admins. - 16:48, May 24, 2014 (UTC) Got it. Thanks -- Capricorn (talk) 17:20, May 24, 2014 (UTC) Wrong episode category Is there any way to fix this? The image is incorrectly listed as appearing in "Doctor's Orders" category-wise because the episode is linked to in the background section. -- Capricorn (talk) 05:45, June 5, 2014 (UTC) :The category is automatically added by the template, so the solution is to not use it, and instead use " " (including the quotes). - 04:51, June 6, 2014 (UTC)